Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in UK Politics

      Confusion over Brexit customs rules forces retailers to suspend Northern Ireland deliveries

      by

      Retailers including John Lewis and Dunelm have suspended deliveries to Northern Ireland due to uncertainty about red tape to be imposed because of Brexit. Despite Boris Johnson’s insistence that there would be no border down the Irish Sea, firms have been left scrambling to ensure they can navigate the customs declarations imposed on shipments from Great Britain.Hours before the transition period was due to end at 11pm on Thursday, the government announced that parcels sent to consumers in Northern Ireland from Britain would not need customs declarations during a three-month grace period ending on 31 March.The last-minute announcement left companies who had paused deliveries with little time to start up their operations again.
      A spokesperson for John Lewis said on Thursday: “We temporarily paused deliveries and collections in Northern Ireland from 30 December while we awaited further guidance on the new trading arrangements.  “We are reviewing the guidance we have received today and look forward to resuming these services as soon as possible.”  Yodel, one of the UK’s largest delivery firms, has told customers they will have to pay additional charges for shipments to Northern Ireland because of the extra bureaucracy. DPD announced before Christmas that it would suspend deliveries in the province. The courier confirmed on Thursday that its position had not changed.
      Furniture retailer Dunelm said it was working hard to start shipping to Northern Irish customers and hoped to be back up and running again by 11 January.
      Amazon is warning customers that deliveries to Northern Ireland may take longer than normal angering some customers who have paid for a monthly Prime subscription, which includes next-day delivery. Under the Northern Ireland Protocol agreed between the UK and the EU, goods arriving in Northern Ireland from Britain require three documents – an import declaration, a safety and security declaration, and a goods movement reference number.
      The requirements will now be waived until 1 April, giving companies some breathing space.
      Brexit Briefing: The end of the transition periodA government spokesperson said the three-month grace period “recognises the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, the impacts of any disruption to parcel movements in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and specific challenges for operators moving express consignments”.They said further details will be published in the new year, adding: “There is no reason not to continue to send such goods to Northern Ireland. There are options available for businesses and operators to continue to easily move goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as they do now“Some changes will go ahead on 1 January in any case. Businesses receiving goods in Northern Ireland from Great Britain valued at £135 or more will have to fill out a customs declaration within three months of receipt. Alcoholic drinks will also require a declaration.  In August the prime minister said only “over my dead body” would there be a border down the Irish Sea, underlining his earlier claim that there would be no additional paperwork when sending goods between Britain and Northern Ireland.
      The problems are the latest example of the disruption consumers and businesses face as the 1,255-page Brexit trade agreement comes into force from Friday.
      Delays are expected in Kent as hauliers adjust to the new regime with question marks over the preparedness of smaller exporters who have previously had free access to mainland Europe.Any issues are expected to be mitigated by the fact that 1 January is a bank holiday with fewer lorries making the journey across the Channel. Many companies have also built up stockpiles of goods and parts in anticipation of the transition period coming to an end. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Year ends on low note as 787,000 more Americans file for unemployment

      by

      [embedded content]
      Another 787,000 Americans filed for unemployment benefits in the week before Christmas, the last snapshot of 2020’s appalling jobs market before the New Year.
      Unemployment claims have been rising again in recent weeks to their highest levels since the autumn as surging coronavirus rates have slowed hiring and led to more layoffs. At current levels the weekly claims figures are almost four times their pre-pandemic average.
      The latest weekly figure from the Department of Labor was 19,000 lower than the previous week’s 803,000 claims but the average number of claims over the last four weeks is now 836,750, more than the population of the city of Seattle.
      The national unemployment rate started the year at 3.6% in January and hit a record high of 14.7% in April as the coronavirus shut down much of the US economy. The unemployment rate has since declined dramatically, it was 6.7% in November, but the recovery has been uneven with women and black, Hispanic and young people still experiencing high levels of unemployment. The numbers of long-term unemployed are rising.
      The recent increases in weekly unemployment claims signal more trouble ahead.
      According to the Economic Policy Institute, 25.7 million workers in the US remain officially unemployed, otherwise out of work due to the pandemic, or have experienced a reduction in work hours or pay.
      After months of wrangling Congress has finally brokered a deal to extend unemployment assistance to the millions laid off during the pandemic. The $900bn Covid-19 relief bill will give those receiving unemployment benefits an extra $300 a week and extends two pandemic-specific programs used by about 14 million people. But the delay in the agreement means many across the country face delays in payments and more hardship.
      Fernando Comas of Secaucus, New Jersey, worked as a video engineer in the entertainment industry before the pandemic and has been furloughed since March until at least 2021.
      Six weeks ago, his benefits were exhausted. He has been unable to receive answers from his state unemployment agency to try to resolve the issue.
      “I have a family to feed, a mortgage to pay, a car payment, and I’m a single father of two small girls who rely on me to provide for them,” said Comas, who cannot afford to find other work because his family’s health coverage is still being covered by his employer. “I’m going to lose everything, probably going to be evicted and will start to go to the food banks for food for my family.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The three most misused phrases in US politics in 2020 | Jeffrey Frankel

      by

      Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic dominated the news headlines in 2020. Three terms in particular came to symbolise the year: “witch-hunt,” “black swan” and “exponential”.Trump has tweeted the phrase “witch-hunt” approximately once every three days on average during his presidency and not only in connection with his impeachment trial. He continued to use it later in the year to describe accusations that he mismanaged America’s Covid-19 response, inquiries into his tax returns, an investigation into alleged criminal conduct at the Trump Organization and other controversies.Most people made their minds up long ago about whether Trump was guilty of his alleged transgressions. But neither his supporters nor his critics have given full thought to the linguistic implications of the term “witch-hunt”. Perhaps it doesn’t mean what they think it does.The original witch-hunts began in early modern Europe and spread to colonial America, in the religious persecution of those accused of practising witchcraft. In Europe, an estimated 40,000-60,000 people – mainly women – were executed between 1400 and 1782. Americans usually think of the 1692-93 witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts, in which 30 people were convicted and 19 hanged.The term entered widespread use only in the mid-20th century, to describe the frenzied search for communists “under the bed”. Arthur Miller’s 1953 play about the Salem trials, The Crucible, was an allegory for US senator Joseph McCarthy’s hearings into alleged communist infiltration of the US government.To be sure, the 17th-century witch trials and McCarthyism differed in important ways. For one thing, communists really existed. But the two historical episodes had one thing in common that distinguishes them from the accusations against Trump. In a genuine witch-hunt, the hunters start from the firm belief that a particular type of evil-doer – witches or communists – is hiding in plain sight, and then try to identify who they are.When the president and his many supporters accuse his detractors of carrying out a witch-hunt, they are making a different claim. They are claiming that Trump’s critics start from the unwavering belief that he is up to no good, and see it as their job to find crimes to pin on him. They have identified him, and they are out to get him one way or another. “Persecution” or “harassment” would more accurately convey Trump’s meaning.Such distinctions are crucial. When federal authorities charged the gangster Al Capone with tax evasion in 1931, it was not a witch-hunt. The target of their investigation was determined first; then the charges that could put him away were identified – an application of the rule of law.The second phrase that pervaded 2020 was “black swan”. When the new coronavirus spread beyond China and suddenly affected the health and jobs of people around the world, many described it as a quintessential “black swan” event.Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s eponymous 2007 book turned black swan virtually into a household expression, because it appeared to describe the 2007-09 financial crisis so well. Taleb defined the term to mean a major event that nobody realised was even a possibility, because they had never seen one of its kind before. But the metaphor is more insightful than that.The historical importance of the notion of a black swan lies in British philosophy. Like most Britons, David Hume (writing in the 18th century) and John Stuart Mill (writing in the 19th century) had never seen one. Reasoning by induction, they might easily have concluded that all swans were white. But, as British ornithologists were aware, Dutch explorers had discovered black swans in Australia in 1697. So, the best way to use the black swan metaphor is to point out that competent experts can and do factor in data from other decades, centuries and countries, and that competent policymakers should listen to their warnings.Contrary to the widespread belief in US financial markets before 2007, housing prices can go down as well as up. Similarly, health experts and well-informed policymakers had been well aware before 2020 that a pandemic like Covid-19 was not only possible, but likely to strike sooner or later. In too many countries, however, political leaders failed to heed the warnings and recommendations. The world has paid dearly for their mistake.So, this year’s Covid-19 pandemic was indeed a black swan. But the phrase is perhaps best defined not just as a sudden major development that catches the general public by surprise, but as a “tail event” – known by scientific experts and responsible officials to be a dangerous possibility (albeit one with relatively low probability in any given year).Finally, the word “exponential” was used frequently in common speech even before the pandemic – and almost always incorrectly, to mean “rapid”. Of course, anyone wishing to play language police must confront the argument made by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, who insisted that, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.”But linguistic precision is often important for achieving intellectual precision. Exponential is a mathematical term. It does not mean rapid. Hard as this may be to believe, there is not even a correlation or association between exponential and high growth rates. The money that one has in the bank changes exponentially, due to compound interest, but the rate can be low or even negative, as European interest rates demonstrate.With the arrival of Covid-19, people finally began to use the word “exponential” correctly, to describe the number of infections. The reason why the number of cases rises exponentially is that each infected person infects a number of other people. Epidemiologists call this average ratio the rate of reproduction, represented by R. It is designated R0 in a population with no immunity and no countermeasures.The use of R has drawbacks, particularly the difficulty of estimating it. But the concept makes an important point. If R is greater than one, as it was in the early stages of the pandemic and presumably has become again in many places, it means that things are getting worse.R can be brought down via wearing face masks, social distancing, frequent hand-washing, testing, isolation, and now inoculation with the new Covid-19 vaccines. When R falls below one, it means that the pandemic is dying out, and that the rate of exponential growth is negative.So, here’s wishing everyone no witches to hunt, the swans they expect and an R well below one in 2021.• Jeffrey Frankel is a professor at Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School of Government. He served as a member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers© Project Syndicate More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Blueprint for Biden? How a struggling Irish town gambled on its links to JFK

      by

      New Ross reinvented itself as a shrine to the Kennedy clan. Can towns linked to Biden, the most Irish American president since JFK, do the same?After its factories died and its port withered, New Ross, a town perched by the River Barrow in south-east Ireland, decided in the 1990s to tap a unique asset: John F Kennedy.The US president’s great-grandfather had sailed from the quays of New Ross to America during the 1840s famine, leaving behind a modest homestead that JFK twice visited, including a few months before his assassination in 1963. Like many Americans, not least the current US president-elect, Joe Biden, Kennedy was proud of his Irish connections and keen to re-emphasise the links. Continue reading… More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Walmart sued by US over alleged role in fuelling America's opioid crisis

      by

      The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Walmart on Tuesday, alleging that the retail giant filled “thousands of invalid prescriptions” for powerful painkillers, helping fuel America’s opioid crisis.Walmart runs more than 5,000 pharmacies across the country. Until 2018, the chain was a wholesale distributor of controlled substances for its own pharmacies, giving it extensive reach into many communities.The civil complaint points to the role Walmart’s pharmacies may have played in the crisis by filling opioid prescriptions and by unlawfully distributing controlled substances to the pharmacies during the height of the opioid crisis.“As a nationwide dispenser and distributor of opioids, and given the sheer number of pharmacies it operates, Walmart was uniquely well positioned to prevent the illegal diversion of opioids,” the 160-page civil suit, filed in Delaware federal court, said.“Yet, for years, as the prescription drug abuse epidemic ravaged the country, Walmart abdicated those responsibilities,” the suit added.In response, Walmart said the suit was “riddled with factual inaccuracies”.The DoJ document said the company “knowingly violated well established rules requiring it to scrutinize controlled-substance prescriptions to ensure that they were valid – that is, issued by prescribers in a legitimate manner for legitimate purposes, not for purposes of abuse or other diversion,” the suit continued. While Walmart was legally required to check potential red flags, it “made little effort to ensure that it complied with them”.Instead, Walmart made it hard for pharmacists to abide by these regulations. Managers pressured pharmacists to fill high volumes of prescriptions as quickly as possible “while at the same time denying them the authority to categorically refuse to fill prescriptions issued by prescribers the pharmacists knew were continually issuing invalid prescriptions”, the complaint charged.Even though Walmart’s compliance arm had amassed extensive information showing that people were repeatedly trying to get invalid narcotic prescriptions filled, the unit kept that data from pharmacists, authorities also said.Walmart filled prescriptions from prescribers who its own pharmacists had “repeatedly reported were acting as egregious ‘pill mills’ – even when Walmart was alerted that other pharmacies were not filling prescriptions for those prescribers. In fact, some of those pill-mill prescribers specifically told their patients to fill their prescriptions at Walmart.”So intense were the pressures on pharmacists that managers told them to “[h]ustle to the customer, hustle from station to station” because completing prescriptions “is a battle of seconds”, federal authorities alleged.As early as 2013, Walmart adopted a plan that used the number of prescriptions processed by an employee’s store as a factor in determining if the pharmacy staffer “was entitled to monetary incentive awards”.The DoJ contends that Walmart has committed “hundreds of thousands of violations” of the Controlled Substances Act. If Walmart is found liable for violating this act, each unlawfully filled prescription could result in a $67,627 penalty. Each suspicious order that was not reported to authorities could result in a penalty of up to $15,691. Civil penalties could reach “billions”, the DoJ said.More than 232,000 people died in the US from opioid-involved overdoses between 1999 and 2018, according to the DoJ.In a statement, Walmart said that the DoJ’s investigation was “tainted by historical ethics violations, and this lawsuit invents a legal theory that unlawfully forces pharmacists to come between patients and their doctors, and is riddled with factual inaccuracies and cherry-picked documents taken out of context”.“Blaming pharmacists for not second-guessing the very doctors the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) approved to prescribe opioids is a transparent attempt to shift blame from DEA’s well-documented failures in keeping bad doctors from prescribing opioids in the first place,” the company said.Walmart recently sued the DoJ and DEA, alleging that authorities wrongly ascribed blame to the company. The retailer’s suit wants a federal judge to determine that the government doesn’t have grounds to pursue civil damages, according to the Associated Press. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      What Should Business Expect From Bolivia’s New President?

      by

      On October 18, the Bolivian public went to the polls and elected Luis Arce Catacora as the country’s 67th president in a surprise result that returned the socialist party of former President Evo Morales to power. Morales had previously ruled Bolivia as the leader of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) between January 2006 and November 2019, when he resigned from office and fled the country under pressure from the military following a controversial general election.

      The closeness of that contest — in which the conservative candidate Carlos Mesa missed forcing a runoff against Morales by 0.58% of the official vote tally — meant that 2020 was also expected to be a tight race. In the event, this year’s election saw Arce gain over half a million more votes than Morales had the previous year, with a similar amount bled away from Mesa’s 2019 total, handing Arce an outright victory without the need for a run-off.

      Why Is Foreign Investment Flooding Into India?

      READ MORE

      While it would be tempting to see the Arce administration as a continuation of the Morales era, on the campaign trail, the new president repeatedly stated, “I am not Evo Morales.” Since being elected, Arce has made clear that Morales would have “no role” in his government. Nevertheless, with Arce serving as minister of economy and public finance for most of Morales’ tenure, any consideration of what to expect from the new president must take into account his predecessor’s record. 

      Business Under Morales

      The Morales administration presided over a period of considerable economic growth and social development, which saw the rate of extreme poverty drop by more than half, from 48% in 2006 to 23% in 2018, while gross national income (GNI) per capita — a general indicator of prosperity among the population — more than tripled to reach $3,530 in 2019. GDP growth was also continuous and relatively consistent during this period, fluctuating between 3.4% and 6.8% until 2019, when it dipped to 2.2%. Those figures made Bolivia one of the fastest-growing countries in the region for much of Morales’ presidency.

      Embed from Getty Images

      These changes were partly the result of a policy of nationalizing the petroleum, telecommunications and mining industries, enacted by decree early in Morales’ first year in office and less than two years after 92% of Bolivian voters had supported the nationalization of hydrocarbons during a compulsory referendum. While the country’s revenues from hydrocarbons increased dramatically and provided the funds to support poverty alleviation programs, that approach did not lead to a dramatic fall in foreign direct investment (FDI) in oil and gas extraction or mining, as many expected. In fact, both industries saw significant increases in FDI, which subsequently declined again but never below the levels seen before Morales came into office. Throughout this time, it was Arce overseeing these programs and investment, as well as a process of agricultural development and rural land redistribution, which was followed by both a significant increase in cereal and fisheries production. 

      It is important to note that a major policy shift occurred toward the latter years of the administration, with Arce himself stating during Morales’ final term that “our nationalisation agenda is over. … we need FDI, and we respect genuine, new private investment. Today FDI makes up 2 percent to 3% of our GDP. We want to double that by 2020.” In 2017, the country signed deals with foreign investors for hydrocarbon exploitation worth $1.6 billion, supplemented by a further $2.5-billion deal the following year. 

      The fact that the interim presidency of Jeanine Añez, who occupied the office between Morales and Arce, largely coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic makes it incredibly difficult to properly assess its performance, given the massive economic upheaval experienced throughout the region. While the interim government ordered an audit of the previous administration early on, it was soon forced to focus on implementing a range of measures designed to address the closure of businesses and an increase in unemployment.  

      In October, the interim government reported that the economic damage caused by the pandemic totaled around $5 billion, with an economic contraction of at least 4% expected by the end of 2020. While this unprecedented situation might make an assessment of the interim government difficult, it at least provides some important context for Arce’s approach to business and investment, which will be framed by the need to address the deep economic wounds caused by the pandemic.

      Arce’s Approach to Business

      As a candidate, Arce highlighted the efficacy of the economic policies pursued during the Morales administration and his intention to continue them. While this has been met with concern among some commentators, the more FDI-friendly latter years under Morales should give some cause for hope for investment in the country. Arce has proposed a drive for industrialization to replace importing foreign products in order to stimulate the internal market and generate more opportunities for locally-based companies. He has also said that he wants to encourage new company formation in Bolivia in order to stimulate employment.

      Yet Arce has also said that some form of austerity to deal with the country’s economic woes will be needed, even as he has pledged not to reduce public expenditure. In a sign of his pro-FDI approach, he has also highlighted his desire to tap into Bolivia’s massive and unexploited lithium reserves, at a time when demand for the mineral is skyrocketing in the face of the shift toward electric vehicles. Arce has stated that exploitation of those reserves will demand the help of a “strategic partner” and could pour an additional $2 billion into state coffers over the course of his five-year term.

      With the economic uncertainty that continues to swirl due to the ongoing pandemic, it is difficult to draw concrete conclusions about what to expect from the Arce administration, given that it is impossible to know what challenges and obstacles may present themselves in the coming months or years. Nevertheless, his early moves have pointed to a clear desire to stimulate business, with measures taken to provide for deferred credit, refinancing and rescheduling of debts, as well as forbidding additional interest being added to such credit by banks. 

      What is abundantly clear is that Luis Arce understands how critical FDI is to Bolivia’s future development, and that understanding will surely only have deepened in the context of the economic turmoil that has traversed the globe. With Bolivia boasting a host of investment opportunities and unsaturated markets, and with the new president already highlighting his desire to bring foreign investment into Bolivia’s massive untapped lithium reserves, it seems reasonable to expect that his administration will pursue a significant deepening of FDI even while he maintains the high levels of social spending seen under Evo Morales.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trickle-down economics doesn't work but build-up does – is Biden listening? | Robert Reich

      by

      How should the huge financial costs of the pandemic be paid for, as well as the other deferred needs of society after this annus horribilis?Politicians rarely want to raise taxes on the rich. Joe Biden promised to do so but a closely divided Congress is already balking.That’s because they’ve bought into one of the most dangerous of all economic ideas: that economic growth requires the rich to become even richer. Rubbish.Economist John Kenneth Galbraith once dubbed it the “horse and sparrow” theory: “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”We know it as trickle-down economics.In a new study, David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London lay waste to the theory. They reviewed data over the last half-century in advanced economies and found that tax cuts for the rich widened inequality without having any significant effect on jobs or growth. Nothing trickled down.Meanwhile, the rich have become far richer. Since the start of the pandemic, just 651 American billionaires have gained $1tn of wealth. With this windfall they could send a $3,000 check to every person in America and still be as rich as they were before the pandemic. Don’t hold your breath.You don’t need a doctorate in ethical philosophy to think that now might be a good time to redistribute some of richesStock markets have been hitting record highs. More initial public stock offerings have been launched this year than in over two decades. A wave of hi-tech IPOs has delivered gushers of money to Silicon Valley investors, founders and employees.Oh, and tax rates are historically low.Yet at the same time, more than 20 million Americans are jobless, 8 million have fallen into poverty, 19 million are at risk of eviction and 26 million are going hungry. Mainstream economists are already talking about a “K-shaped” recovery – the better-off reaping most gains while the bottom half continue to slide.You don’t need a doctorate in ethical philosophy to think that now might be a good time to tax and redistribute some of the top’s riches to the hard-hit below. The UK is already considering an emergency tax on wealth.The president-elect has rejected a wealth tax, but maybe he should be even more ambitious and seek to change economic thinking altogether.The practical alternative to trickle-down economics might be called build-up economics. Not only should the rich pay for today’s devastating crisis but they should also invest in the public’s long-term wellbeing. The rich themselves would benefit from doing so, as would everyone else.At one time, America’s major political parties were on the way to embodying these two theories. Speaking to the Democratic national convention in 1896, populist William Jennings Bryan noted: “There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.”Build-up economics reached its zenith in the decades after the second world war, when the richest Americans paid a marginal income tax rate of between 70% and 90%. That revenue helped fund massive investment in infrastructure, education, health and basic research – creating the largest and most productive middle class the world had ever seen.But starting in the 1980s, America retreated from public investment. The result is crumbling infrastructure, inadequate schools, wildly dysfunctional healthcare and public health systems and a shrinking core of basic research. Productivity has plummeted.Yet we know public investment pays off. Studies show an average return on infrastructure investment of $1.92 for every public dollar invested, and a return on early childhood education of between 10% and 16% – with 80% of the benefits going to the general public.The Covid vaccine reveals the importance of investments in public health, and the pandemic shows how everyone’s health affects everyone else’s. Yet 37 million Americans still have no health insurance. A study in the Lancet estimates Medicare for All would prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths each year, while saving money.If we don’t launch something as bold as a Green New Deal, we’ll spend trillions coping with ever more damaging hurricanes, wildfires, floods and rising sea levels.The returns from these and other public investments are huge. The costs of not making them are astronomical.Trickle-down economics is a cruel hoax, while the benefits of build-up economics are real. At this juncture, between a global pandemic and the promise of a post-pandemic world, and between the administrations of Trump and Biden, we would be well-served by changing the economic paradigm from trickle down to build up. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Learning to Become the World’s Second-Richest Man

      by

      After officially eclipsing Bill Gates to reach the rank of the second-richest person on the planet, Elon Musk clearly deserved a lengthy video interview with the Wall Street Journal. It could probe into how Musk managed to become the world’s wealthiest and most admired innovator. The Journal couldn’t saddle any random hack with that formidable task, and so its editor-in-chief, Matt Murray, rose to the occasion. The interview lasted nearly half an hour and can be viewed on YouTube.

      Most people consider Musk a genius, although here at the Daily Devil’s Dictionary we have regularly referred to him as an accomplished hyperreal performer who captures (because he is captured by) the spirit of the age. Call it the Taoist principle of reversion, being and non-being. The causal relationship between cultural icons like Musk and their environment is reversible and self-perpetuating. Pushing the metaphor, Musk’s hyperreality exists in a quantum state where the reassuring idea of stable identity disappears. Musk creates today’s culture because today’s culture has created Musk. Culture innovates; innovators hitch a ride.

      Who Rigs the Ship of State?

      READ MORE

      Interviews with Musk are generally painful to watch. This one is no exception. It reveals that there is nothing stable in Elon Musk’s thought processes and very little that is original. He is certainly deeply knowledgeable, with a well-focused technical vision of his companies and their products. But his attempts at “profound thought” are difficult to differentiate from the clichés promulgated by the ambient hyperreal culture, with its deep faith in anything, however superficial, that resembles technical progress and its belief that redesign and duplication on a massive scale equal innovation.

      Musk’s deepest wisdom includes things like his advice that “we don’t want to be complacent.” He brilliantly warns of the danger posed by “the gradual creep of regulations and bureaucracy.” He believes we must fear “regulatory capture by companies.” He sees a need to “have good feedback loops for the customer” and to “make the product better.” Clearly, these are the thoughts of an original thinker.

      Then Musk also offers this pearl of innovative insight, possibly borrowed from Ronald Reagan: “The best thing government can do is just get out of the way.” Murray might have seen this as an opening to plunge into the history of Musk’s lucrative relationship with the government. But he was apparently interested in deeper things.

      Just as everyone craves access to Warren Buffett’s secret formula for investing, Murray wants to know whether other people can be as brilliantly innovative as Musk. “Is it easily learnable?” he asks. Reporting on the interview, the website Inc. chose to focus on this theme: “During a candid and freewheeling interview with Wall Street Journal editor in chief Matt Murray this week, Musk argued that creating innovative products is ‘absolutely learnable.’”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Learnable:

      The actions of very rich people that poor people should be encouraged to imitate.

      Contextual Note

      Murray believes that if there were more people like Elon Musk, the world would be a better place. Concerned with the future of humanity, he hopes that Musk can teach others, or at least serve as a model so that we can all eventually become the second-richest person in the world. Musk was initially taken aback by Murray’s question. He began his response by saying, “I think it is learnable” before convincing himself that the right thing to say was “I think that’s absolutely learnable.” The website Inc. helpfully repeated for its readers Musk’s three original recipes for learning. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      The first is: “Try hard.” Success is not for the lazy. The second is “Seek negative feedback” and then ask yourself this surprising question, “How can we make this better?” But even that requires its mystical corollary: you must “love your product.” The third is essentially negative: stay away from meetings, presentations and spreadsheets. Spend time on the factory floor. To prove his point, Musk mobilizes the metaphor of a general who leaves his “ivory tower” to fight with the troops on the front line. Inspiring! 

      Murray did at one point raise the more down-to-earth question of Musk’s relationship with government, an issue with financial implications WSJ’s readers tend to be interested in. But once Musk established the overriding principle that government should simply “get out of the way,” Murray saw no reason to follow it up. Luckily, other journalists have tried harder. Six years ago, New York Mag’s Intelligencer provided the details of Musk’s Amazon-style bullying and classic techniques of corruption.

      The piece summed up his dealings with the authorities in this succinct phrase: “This negotiation is straight out of the special-interest playbook.” It explained that in 2014 “SpaceX hired lobbyists and flew a key lawmaker to its offices. Musk gave about $12,000 in campaign contributions … During the meeting … Musk described his dream to take people to Mars. … He also said Texas needed to compete with other states.” 

      In other words, the government’s role is to pony up the cash Musk needs before it gets out of his way. Taxpayers pay for the right to trust Musk’s unimpeded judgment to do the right things (i.e., whatever he wants) with the cash they have offered him. Among those right things is, of course, the odd campaign contribution, just to keep things running smoothly.

      In 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space. And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.” At the time, they set the figure at $4.9 billion. One analyst explained that “He definitely goes where there is government money. That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.” That day has yet to come. Musk is now the one who has the power to decide when to cut the government off.

      At one point, Murray did ask Musk an embarrassing question: “What mistakes have you made?” Musk humbly admits he has made so many mistakes he wouldn’t have enough time to list them all. But he conveniently dodges the question by vaunting his involvement “on the factory floor.” He claims that “the morale is good” at Tesla, which is his Trump-like way of denying that he has ever made a serious mistake.

      Historical Note

      Musk’s employees have had the occasion to offer plenty of negative feedback, none of which he seems to have taken on board. Why should he? The government has not only backed him but is SpaceX’s main customer. The company “signed $5.5 billion worth of government contracts with NASA and the United States Air Force.” Just last week it was announced that “The FCC is giving SpaceX’s satellite internet service, Starlink, $886 million” as part of its program to bring broadband to rural America.

      Employees have regularly complained of Musk’s style of micro-management and his alacrity for making promises but failing to keep them. In September 2019, a court ruled that “the Tesla CEO and other company executives [had] been illegally sabotaging employee efforts to form a union.” Bloomberg reported last year that, after a leaker revealed a serious problem of mismanagement at the Gigafactory, “Musk set out to destroy him” — like a Mafia boss. On the other hand, the success of Musk’s companies, the pay and the challenge of the firm’s ambition has kept most of his employees reasonably happy.

      Nevertheless, Tesla has a few seriously worrying skeletons in its closet. Another whistleblower made some damning charges when he reported Tesla not only for “covering up and spying on its employees back in 2018” but for organizing a “drug cartel operation inside the Gigafactory.” These affairs have still not been adjudicated in the courts. Most likely, they will never be permitted to become public scandals. It is equally unlikely that Musk sees them as “learnable” moments.

      A year ago, Musk was officially worth about $20 billion. Two weeks ago, he became the world’s second-richest person, with a fortune estimated at $128 billion. He definitely works hard to earn what amounts to about 0.4 billion for every working day (assuming he takes weekends off and a month’s vacation). That’s the reward one can expect from spending the right amount of time on the factory floor.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More